Ice Hockey DBoard

The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard 


Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page

email: icehockeydboard@yahoo.com

Youth Hockey
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

U15 can be a good option, more opportunities, etc. For example, U15 looking good at Selects. Seven 02 commits (2 from U16 and 5 from U15) and hearing more to come. A lot of commits for a single birth year, more than all but a couple of prep schools from multiple birth years. Next season’s 03 U15 team looking just as strong. 02 commits:

BU
Denver
Quinnipiac
Northeastern (2)
Miami of Ohio
UVM

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Anon
U15 can be a good option, more opportunities, etc. For example, U15 looking good at Selects. Seven 02 commits (2 from U16 and 5 from U15) and hearing more to come. A lot of commits for a single birth year, more than all but a couple of prep schools from multiple birth years. Next season’s 03 U15 team looking just as strong. 02 commits:

BU
Denver
Quinnipiac
Northeastern (2)
Miami of Ohio
UVM
Thanks 03 Dad whose son isn't even there yet!

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

anon
Anon
U15 can be a good option, more opportunities, etc. For example, U15 looking good at Selects. Seven 02 commits (2 from U16 and 5 from U15) and hearing more to come. A lot of commits for a single birth year, more than all but a couple of prep schools from multiple birth years. Next season’s 03 U15 team looking just as strong. 02 commits:

BU
Denver
Quinnipiac
Northeastern (2)
Miami of Ohio
UVM
Thanks 03 Dad whose son isn\'t even there yet!
The mentality of this post — which is typical of a lot of posts on the DBoard — cracks me up. Always trying to expose some sort of angle to undermine credibility even when there is none. No doubt there are those who seek to advance an agenda rather than simply to discuss or inform. Fair play to call them out, but that’s not always the case. Of course, that same mentality would dictate a responsive post along the following lines, “sorry your 03 bender didn’t make the squad.“. That’s just as doucheboardy, so i’ve opted for a different tact.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

If college teams took and played all their “commits” they would have 45 man rosters.

Commit all you want. If your kid doesn’t grow or their game goes sideways due to typical teenage stuff, it means nothing. A bad injury? offer reneged. Get in trouble? Offer reneged.
Bad grades? Offer reneged. And so on...

Most importantly, the uncommitted kid from Milton wants your kid’s spot? Guess what, because he is better, he gets it and guess what? Offer reneged!

These agreements are as loose as my college girlfriend so settle down PR pushers!

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Anon
If college teams took and played all their “commits” they would have 45 man rosters.

Commit all you want. If your kid doesn’t grow or their game goes sideways due to typical teenage stuff, it means nothing. A bad injury? offer reneged. Get in trouble? Offer reneged.
Bad grades? Offer reneged. And so on...

Most importantly, the uncommitted kid from Milton wants your kid’s spot? Guess what, because he is better, he gets it and guess what? Offer reneged!

These agreements are as loose as my college girlfriend so settle down PR pushers!

I made the post and generally agree with you, especially the part about your girlfriend. A lot of development does or does not happen between 15 or 16 years old and by the time the kid goes to college.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Must burn some people’s butt that some local kids headed to SKS next year, especially the mom who’s been saying for two years that her son is headed there...oh wait, he’s not. He’s playing for his crappy HS due to no offers!

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Know a few kids going down there "to play hockey"...one couldn't even crack the line up of a lower end CC school.

Remember...if you have the money to pay to go...they will find a spot for you...they have 4-5 teams.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

SKS has 1 team at u15, 16 and 18. All recruits. Nobody sending their kid there unless recruited for one of those teams.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Anon
SKS has 1 team at u15, 16 and 18. All recruits. Nobody sending their kid there unless recruited for one of those teams.
And at the Preps they call that: Freshman, JV and Varsity...

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Anony
Anon
SKS has 1 team at u15, 16 and 18. All recruits. Nobody sending their kid there unless recruited for one of those teams.
And at the Preps they call that: Freshman, JV and Varsity...
No they don't. Not in this decade. 15 YOs are promised Varsity roster spots to recruit them, even if there are better upperclassmen. Prep JV is awful. Only a couple of schools have Freshman teams.

U16 might be the rough equivalent of Varsity B at an AOF or Cushing, but is probably better than those teams and pretty equal to most Prep Varsity.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Please define development for me? I think it’s an overused term but do so enlighten me.

Hockey, like anything else should be a positive experience for each participant. Skill and commitment levels are going to vary. To measure the value of the program is very difficult if you think about it. Most programs at the older levels recruit players for a year then they are off to wherever their going. Can that program really claim they were the reason for the kid’s success?

If a kid started off as a C player and ended up as an A player, well that’s develop. Incremental improvement in the game. If the kid was good enough to play on a full season team over a crappy high school team and went from fourth line to second or first line then that is development.

The biggest problem with this debate is everyone thinks the end goal or success is D1 or the pros. Totally wrong way to look at it. Not enough opportunities and way too many kids. Look at development from progress standpoint relative to the player. A kid who is middle of the pack as a PW or Bantam that is committed and consistently improves and is now one of the better kids on a full season or HS or Prep team with the potential to play D3 college is a huge success story for development. If the kid bounced around from team to team well that kid probably is the reason for his own development. If he stuck with the same team and coach and somebody committed to him to help him improve and keep him focused on the game, well regardless of the outcome I would put credit on that coach.

I may be missing one or two but 93 and 95 Kings, 00 and 01 Flames, 01 and 02 Kings, 02 BA, 02 Breakers, 02 Islanders, and 03 Terriers are the few teams/coaches that have consistently developed their players where most kept pace with developing and gave kids an opportunity to keep playing at a higher than normal level. Hats off to those coaches.

Just remember, if a kid stays loving the game and continues to get better regardless of what his endgame is, that is what matters. Ironically the happiest hockey players are the ones that are at the town or lower select league level.



Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

You guys have put a lot of thought into analyzing someone who is only a hockey scout because he calls himself one on twitter. JC sucks. He's terrible. Everyone hates him except for the 2 agents who he works for and the 2 or 3 coaches he constantly pumps on twitter (Keefe. Albie you know the drill). Cox is an idiot.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

03 terriers? Really?

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Anon
Please define development for me? I think it’s an overused term but do so enlighten me.

Hockey, like anything else should be a positive experience for each participant. Skill and commitment levels are going to vary. To measure the value of the program is very difficult if you think about it. Most programs at the older levels recruit players for a year then they are off to wherever their going. Can that program really claim they were the reason for the kid’s success?

If a kid started off as a C player and ended up as an A player, well that’s develop. Incremental improvement in the game. If the kid was good enough to play on a full season team over a crappy high school team and went from fourth line to second or first line then that is development.

The biggest problem with this debate is everyone thinks the end goal or success is D1 or the pros. Totally wrong way to look at it. Not enough opportunities and way too many kids. Look at development from progress standpoint relative to the player. A kid who is middle of the pack as a PW or Bantam that is committed and consistently improves and is now one of the better kids on a full season or HS or Prep team with the potential to play D3 college is a huge success story for development. If the kid bounced around from team to team well that kid probably is the reason for his own development. If he stuck with the same team and coach and somebody committed to him to help him improve and keep him focused on the game, well regardless of the outcome I would put credit on that coach.

I may be missing one or two but 93 and 95 Kings, 00 and 01 Flames, 01 and 02 Kings, 02 BA, 02 Breakers, 02 Islanders, and 03 Terriers are the few teams/coaches that have consistently developed their players where most kept pace with developing and gave kids an opportunity to keep playing at a higher than normal level. Hats off to those coaches.

Just remember, if a kid stays loving the game and continues to get better regardless of what his endgame is, that is what matters. Ironically the happiest hockey players are the ones that are at the town or lower select league level.



You had me... until your last sentence. Not only is it you just making a broad statement that can never be quantified it is also ridiculous. If your kid loves hockey, I mean actually loves hockey, then they love it.

My son is just as happy on his regular season team as he is playing for a good tourney team as he is playing fora crap tourney team as his is playing pickup hockey as he is playing pond hockey as he is practicing.

The kids who enjoy the game and the process enjoy it. period. Stop justifying lower level hockey by making a ridiculous statement that the kids are happier.

Ask the kids themselves if they are happier, or if they would like to be on a better team.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

Anon
Anon
Please define development for me? I think it’s an overused term but do so enlighten me.

Hockey, like anything else should be a positive experience for each participant. Skill and commitment levels are going to vary. To measure the value of the program is very difficult if you think about it. Most programs at the older levels recruit players for a year then they are off to wherever their going. Can that program really claim they were the reason for the kid’s success?

If a kid started off as a C player and ended up as an A player, well that’s develop. Incremental improvement in the game. If the kid was good enough to play on a full season team over a crappy high school team and went from fourth line to second or first line then that is development.

The biggest problem with this debate is everyone thinks the end goal or success is D1 or the pros. Totally wrong way to look at it. Not enough opportunities and way too many kids. Look at development from progress standpoint relative to the player. A kid who is middle of the pack as a PW or Bantam that is committed and consistently improves and is now one of the better kids on a full season or HS or Prep team with the potential to play D3 college is a huge success story for development. If the kid bounced around from team to team well that kid probably is the reason for his own development. If he stuck with the same team and coach and somebody committed to him to help him improve and keep him focused on the game, well regardless of the outcome I would put credit on that coach.

I may be missing one or two but 93 and 95 Kings, 00 and 01 Flames, 01 and 02 Kings, 02 BA, 02 Breakers, 02 Islanders, and 03 Terriers are the few teams/coaches that have consistently developed their players where most kept pace with developing and gave kids an opportunity to keep playing at a higher than normal level. Hats off to those coaches.

Just remember, if a kid stays loving the game and continues to get better regardless of what his endgame is, that is what matters. Ironically the happiest hockey players are the ones that are at the town or lower select league level.



You had me... until your last sentence. Not only is it you just making a broad statement that can never be quantified it is also ridiculous. If your kid loves hockey, I mean actually loves hockey, then they love it.

My son is just as happy on his regular season team as he is playing for a good tourney team as he is playing fora crap tourney team as his is playing pickup hockey as he is playing pond hockey as he is practicing.

The kids who enjoy the game and the process enjoy it. period. Stop justifying lower level hockey by making a ridiculous statement that the kids are happier.

Ask the kids themselves if they are happier, or if they would like to be on a better team.
The statement " Ironically the happiest hockey players are the ones that are at the town or lower select league level." is way off base. If your kid is playing town he doesnt love hockey he likes it. The kids that love the game are usually the kids that play more and thus are progressing to higher levels.

Re: Midget Hockey: Top Uncommitted '02s

I said it because higher level hockey typically brings more pressure and unrealistic expectations by some parents, not all. Less wackos screaming at their Squirt because his kids team lost to the Flames and was going to knock them down in the standings... I was one of them, not to that extent though. Not justifying lower level hockey. My boy plays at the highest level for his age. He developed more once I really learned my role in the process, which is keep it fun and put him in the best situation he chooses be be in.

My statement was general because I do think the innocence of recreational players does bring more smiles and less tears. Cool uniforms vs making the EHF All-Star team. Your point is noted though. My boy is similar to yours. Enjoys the game regardless.